Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 81–106

Approaching the typology and diachrony of morphological reversals

Inverse marking in inflectional morphology represents a particular type of mismatch between morphological form and syntactic or semantic function. This kind of morpheme interchange has been found in several languages thus far, but it is not usually included in morphological studies. There have been significant advances in recent times regarding the synchronic description and theoretical assessment of morphological reversals, but the diachronic treatment of this set of phenomena is at most in its incipient stage. Despite the overall scarcity of historical data on the rise of inverse marking patterns, there is, nonetheless, a certain amount of evidence that allows for an understanding of the dynamics of morphological polarity in a diachronic perspective. This paper first provides a revised typology of morphological reversals and then examines two processes of change leading to the appearance of inverse encoding patterns in two inflectional systems (declensional paradigms in Old French and the feature of number in Upper Sorbian). Although differing in important respects (such as the extent to which they can be considered reversals), both innovations demonstrate some of the motives, mechanisms, and functional principles underlying the emergence of inverse marking patterns in inflectional morphology.
Keywords: morphological reversal, polarity, marking inversion, inflectional classes, morphological change, analogy, markedness, economy, ambiguity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Typology of inverted morphological relations
    • 2.1Types of inversion
    • 2.2Full morphological reversals
    • 2.3Partial morphological reversals
    • 2.4Morphological quasi-reversals
    • 2.5Summary
  • 3.Lessons from diachrony: Accounting for the rise of reversals
    • 3.1Old French declensional classes
    • 3.2The expression of paral reference in Upper Sorbian
  • 4.The economy of marker inversion and the role of morphological ambiguity
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.03iga
References (67)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1980. Morphological change: Towards a typology. Historical morphology, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1–50. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43. 33–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bräuer, Herbert. 1969. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. III. Formenlehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83. 8–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dardel, Robert de & Paul A. Gaeng. 1992. La déclinaison nominale du latin non classique: essai d’une méthode de synthèse. Probus 4. 91–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2012. Morphophonological polarity. The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. by Jochen Trommer, 121–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Suppletion in word formation. Historical semantics – historical word formation, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 97–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003. Naturalness and morphological change. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 461–471. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2005. Do affixes have meaning? Polarity in the Toten dialect of Norwegian meets morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 27–47. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Advances in discourse processes 20), ed. by Johanna Nichols & Wallace Chafe, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2010. The age of the Albanian admirative: A problem in historical semantics. Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael Weiss, 31–38. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Gaeng, Paul A. 1984. Collapse and reorganization of the Latin nominal flection as reflected in epigraphic sources. Potomac: Scripta Humanistica.Google Scholar
Grandgent, Charles H. 1962. An introduction to Vulgar Latin. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott. 2012. Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. Count and mass across languages, ed. by Diane Massam, 75–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2008. Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2011. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 561–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2011. Processing efficiency and complexity in typological patterns. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Jae Jung Song, 206–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1967. Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 12. 169–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván. 2005a. On the origin of the genitive dual in Lower Sorbian. Historische Sprachforschung 118. 294–302.Google Scholar
. 2005b. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Kihm, Alain. 2017. Old French declension: A Word and Paradigm approach and the role of syncretisms and defaults in its rise and fall. Defaults in morphological theory, ed. by Nikolas Gisborne & Andrew Hippisley, 40–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, Thomas & Wolfgang Thomas. 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch. I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lahne, Antje. 2007. On deriving polarity effects. 1-2-many (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 85), ed. by Jochen Trommer & Andreas Opitz, 1–22. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2002. Gender “polarity”: Theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. Many morphologies, ed. by Paul Boucher & Marc Plénat, 109–141. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology. A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European linguistics (with contributions by Matthias Fritz & Manfred Mayrhofer). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, William R. 1959. Classification of Kiowa nouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 25:4.269–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohl, F. George. 1899. Introduction à la chronologie du latin vulgaire. Paris: Bouillon (Reprint: Hildesheim-New York: Georg Olms, 1974).Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Ruth Spriggs. 2000. Gender in Teop (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Gender in grammar and cognition. I: Approaches to gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), ed. by Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari, 321–349. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nahtigal, Rajko. 1961. Die slavischen Sprachen. Abriss der vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Morgan. 2016. Somali gender polarity revisited. Diversity in African languages, ed. by Doris L. Payne, Sara Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire, 451–466. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Peyrot, Michaël. 2008. Variation and change in Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122. 280–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1979. The functional basis of case systems and declension classes: From Latin to Old French. Linguistics 17. 611–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2010. Počemu jazyki takie raznye [Why are languages so different?]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Ast-Press.Google Scholar
Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993. Slovene. The Slavonic languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett, 388–451. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of eastern Melanesia (Pacific Linguistics, series C, no. 98). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Saeed, John. 1999. Somali (London Oriental and African language library 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schøsler, Lene. 2013. The development of the declension system. Research on Old French: The state of the art, ed. by Deborah Arteaga, 167–186. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serzisko, Fritz. 1982. Numerus/Genus-Kongruenz und das Phänomen der Polarität am Beispiel einiger ostkuschitischen Sprachen. Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhung in Einzelsprachen, ed. by Hansjakob Seiler & Franz Josef Stachowiak, 179–200. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Šewc-Schuster, Hinc. 1984. Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče. I. Fonologija, fonetika, morfologija [Upper Sorbian grammar. I. Phonology, phonetics, morphology]. Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar
Smith, Lawrence R. 1979. Labrador Inuttut inverted number marking, exchange rules and morphological markedness. Linguistics 17. 153–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speiser, Ephraim A. 1938. The pitfalls of polarity. Language 14. 187–202.Google Scholar
Šul´ga, Marija V. 1985. K istorii grammatičeskogo vyraženija značenija parnosti v russkom jazyke [Towards a history of the grammatical expression of the paral meaning in Russian]. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas. Materialy i issledovanija 1982, 218–247.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58. 832–849.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2008. The formal typology of morphological polarity. Ms., Universität Leipzig ([URL]).
Van Windekens, Albert J. 1979. Le tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indo-eruropéennes. Vol II,1:. Louvain: Centre International de Dialectologie Générale.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors & David Beaver. 2005. The puzzle of ambiguity. Morphology and the web of grammar. Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. by C. Orhan Orgun & Peter Sells, 265–282. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Watters, David E. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigel, William F. 1993. Morphosyntactic toggles. Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol 1. (CLS 29). 467–478.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner. 1962. Nominal and pronominal dual in Tocharian. Language 38.111–134 (= Kleine Schriften / Selected Writings , ed. by Olav Hackstein, Vol. I, 69–92. Bremen: Hempen).Google Scholar
Wonderly, William L., Lorna F. Gibson & Paul L. Kirk. 1954. Number in Kiowa: Nouns, demonstratives, and adjectives. International Journal of American Linguistics 20. 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 2012. Polarity and constraints on paradigmatic distinctness. The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. by Jochen Trommer, 160–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Žolobov, Oleg F. 1998. Symbolik und historische Dynamik des slavischen Duals. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Žukova, Alevtina N. 1972. Grammatika korjakskogo jazyka: Fonetika, morfologija [Grammar of the Koryak language: Phonetics, morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar